Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses that step 1 validates and returns a summary/consent line/token, that nothing is submitted until step 2, that the person must click an emailed link before any provider sees the enquiry, that consent means data goes to up to three consultants, and that the person can stop further sharing. This is far beyond what any structured field declares.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and the two-step flow before the long verbatim consent statement. The consent block is lengthy, but it is required text that must be surfaced to the person, so it earns its place; a minor trim of redundant 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote' repetition would tighten it.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly compensates by describing what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token) and what step 2 triggers (submission plus a verification email). For a nested-object, multi-step, side-effecting tool this is complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it ties 'answers' to field keys from the enquiry_fields sibling, defines consent in operational terms tied to the step-1/step-2 flow, and explains that 'confirmation' is the token returned from step 1 after approval. That clarifies a parameter's origin and lifecycle beyond the schema text.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource ('Submits an enquiry to BNG Quotes') and immediately disambiguates scope with two negations ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). This distinguishes it cleanly from the sibling read/lookup tools enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields without opening any schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly lays out a two-step protocol: Step 1 with answers+consent=true, and Step 2 only after the person agrees, adding the confirmation token. The gating condition for the second call is stated verbatim ('only if the person agrees'). Nothing about when-to-call is left to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.